The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-02-05
A PROTECTloNfsT's REPLY, No. 4


A PR0TBCTlONlsT's REPLY, No, A.
EDIToR FREE TRADER:-Professor Bolt
wood declares that 1.-The protected monupo-
lists deny even fair discussion" This
seems trife ungraclous, Professor, when
q fellow is doing his level best, and the
reason ASST ned seems equally sncharitable,
namely they fear that If one solitary du-
ty IL absolutely repealed, tie whole fabric
is in danger" Upon the contrary, protec-
tionists would reduce the tariff upon many
products, and would absolutely repeal II
upon others The protection economists
themselves favored the repeal of the duty
upon tea and coffee, and the fabric did not
fall. They vigorously opposed the repeal
of the duty upon quinine; 1t was "abso
lutely repealed" and the fabric did not
fall. The repeal they favored, as that they
opposed, did not destroy, but rather
strengthened "the fabric"
That protection which neither stimu.
lates industry, creates competition, or
cheapens product, is robbery. In the name
of "prote 2tion 1t creates and continues
monopoly, and should be abolished for the
benefit of the protection system itself, In
the name of which II masquerades to the
hurt of every interest, ana to this extent,
and in this direction, too, am Tariff
Reformer.
The Professor says that until | affirm
that "the duty on quinine was called for by
the interests of the country or the laboring
classes" | do not fairly meet the Issue, or
answer the point that he made In regard to
il. Now the issue, as | understand II, Is
whether a system OF protective duties is
blessing, or a burden and a curse to the
country not whether the duty upon qui-
nine was excessive or no, and had 1t been
cited as one instance OF our protection, |
might not have referred TO il. But the
Professor declared It TO be typical duty"
that there are today over 1000 articles
protected by heavy tariff duties, and nine
tenths of them are of the nature OF the
quinine trade thus using the duty upon
auinine as q club 10 knock the brains out
of the protection system. Ii not SO intend.
ed, then It does not infringe in the slightest
upon the question at issue, and needs no
reply. If so intended, then | submit that
my reply was pa, In point and decision Of
the fact that though the duty complained
of may have been unnecessarily higher,
nay, even temporarily oppressiVe,-yet it
ultimated In permanent good to the coun-
try, which assume is proof that It was
" called for by the interests of the country
If not by 1.-The laboring classes
The Professor compares country under
system of protection to family of boys,
who stayed at home of rainy day, and
traded lack knives, hats, boots, &c, with
one another; each making five dollars and
having at night just what they started in
with and so concludes that country can
no more get rich by developing its own re-
sources, with getting aid from abroad, than
man can succeed in lifting himself over
fence by his own boot straps This is
Free Trade run mad. II was never before
claimed by the greatest enemies Of pro'ec'
ton. that at its worst, il could do worse
than clog and retard the growth of IA.
tion's wealth. But here is a declaration
that ii absolutely arrests and prevents it-a
deliberate assertion that foreign trade only
produces wealth-and that without il ma.
ton is doomed TO poverty. The experience
of all time-of all nations, and men, pro
claim Its fallacy.
The weakness of the position is the rs
sumption that all wealth is created by
trale, whereas II is the child of production
Reverse the picture, Professor, and instead
of keeping the old mans sons at home
trading with one another, keep them there
raising corn and cattle, and laboring to de
yelop all the natural resources of the farm
instead of running around trading jack
knives, hats, boots and what not, what ther
think you of probable results Would i
drive the household TO want If the ma
ton should initiate their example would i
stif,e wealth, and clog the wheels of indus
trial progress? But the Illustration is In
tended 20 mislead. There Is no anolog,
between the trade of boys upon farm
cash producing the same, where trade l.
obiectless, and trade between the differen
sections of this great empire, each produc